Recent allegations have raised serious questions about Meta’s role in suppressing political dissent and protest movements globally, with a growing focus on Kenya. Activists in the country suspect that the company might be collaborating with the Kenyan government to silence critics, echoing concerns previously raised about Meta’s actions in other regions, including during the Israel-Gaza conflict and in India.
Human Rights Watch Report and Global Concerns
A pivotal report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2023 accused Meta of “systemic and global” censorship on its Facebook and Instagram platforms. The report documented over 1,000 instances of content removal, account suspensions, and restricted sharing related to Palestine across more than 60 countries. HRW highlighted several factors behind this censorship, including inconsistent policy enforcement, over-reliance on automated moderation tools, and undue government influence.
Meta’s Precedent in India
Meta’s history of yielding to government pressure is not new. In India, the company faced significant criticism for its failure to curb hate speech and calls for violence against Muslims. Internal documents revealed a reluctance to act against inflammatory content posted by members of the ruling party, setting a troubling precedent for other governments to exert control over social media narratives.
SEE ALSO: Meta and Vodafone Collaborate to Optimize Video Delivery on European Mobile Networks
Emerging Allegations in Kenya
Now, similar suspicions are emerging in Kenya. Activists and content creators report experiencing sudden drops in engagement and visibility when posting about ongoing protests and government criticism. One notable case involved popular content creator Dennis Ombachi. On X (formerly Twitter), Ombachi shared how a video criticizing the government’s Finance Bill 2024 received minimal views over 20 days. However, when the same video was reposted with subtle changes to evade detection, it garnered significantly more engagement within an hour.
Ombachi identified several tactics for circumventing censorship, including:
- Avoiding hashtags, which are easily flagged by automated systems.
- Embedding messages within seemingly unrelated content to confuse AI moderators.
- Using basic, non-political captions.
- Deleting previously flagged content before reposting.
- Focusing on video content rather than easily flagged images.
These strategies suggest a sophisticated system of content suppression that goes beyond mere algorithmic quirks, leading many to suspect direct collaboration between Meta and the Kenyan government.
Meta’s Business Interests and Free Expression
Critics argue that Meta’s pursuit of growth in developing nations like Kenya may be leading it to compromise on principles of free expression and human rights. The parallels between Meta’s actions in India, its handling of Palestinian content, and the emerging situation in Kenya paint a concerning picture of a platform increasingly willing to bend to government pressure at the expense of free speech.
Meta’s Response and Ongoing Scrutiny
Meta has denied accusations of deliberate bias, stating that enforcing policies during fast-moving conflicts inevitably leads to some errors. However, the mounting evidence across multiple countries suggests a pattern that warrants further investigation and transparency from the company.
Conclusion
As protests continue in Kenya and other parts of the world, the tension between Meta’s business interests, stated values, and role as a communications platform is likely to remain under intense scrutiny. The ongoing allegations highlight the need for Meta to address these concerns transparently and ensure that its platform upholds the principles of free expression and human rights, irrespective of government pressures.
